Ticketing and events: the price you are allowed to advertise
Advertising a price the customer cannot actually obtain, because mandatory fees are added to it, is drip pricing. The practice has been expressly prohibited under the Competition Act since 2022. The amount of the fees plays no part in the analysis: a dollar and a half is enough.
- Drip pricing is false or misleading under the Competition Act, unless the additional fees are imposed by government, such as sales tax.
- The Competition Bureau writes that consumers should not have to scroll down the page or read the fine print to know the total price.
- Making the fees variable rather than fixed does not settle the question. The representation can still raise an issue if the general impression is misleading on a material point.
- The Bureau took a cinema operator to court over online booking fees of $1.50 per ticket. The amount plays no part in the analysis.
- Reworking the price display across every path of a ticketing site comes to about $14,400. It is the most avoidable expense in this file.
On this page
What is drip pricing
Drip pricing consists of advertising a price the consumer cannot actually obtain, because mandatory fees not imposed by government are added to complete the purchase. The Competition Bureau describes it as false or misleading under the Competition Act, and the June 2022 amendments expressly recognize it as a harmful business practice. Only amounts imposed by government, such as sales tax, escape the rule.
What the law actually prohibits
This piece is written for producers, presenters, venues and event organizers that sell tickets online with service fees. It describes the federal and Quebec framework, and does not replace legal advice.
The rule holds in one sentence. Promoting a price that cannot be attained because of fixed fees consumers must pay is against the law, unless those fees amount only to what government imposes.
Since the June 2022 amendments to the Competition Act, drip pricing has been expressly recognized as a harmful business practice. It no longer depends on a case-by-case demonstration that the representation is misleading.
The Bureau names the common forms: processing fees, booking fees, cleaning fees, administrative fees. In ticketing, those are exactly the labels used.
The Bureau states a very concrete test: the true total cost must not force the consumer to scroll down the page or read the fine print. A ticketing site where the total price only appears at the payment step fails that test, even if the final amount is accurate and nothing is hidden in bad faith.
Variable fees do not save you
It is the most frequently considered workaround, and it does not work.
The reasoning sounds solid: if the fees vary with quantity, delivery method or channel, they are not a fixed amount and the displayed price remains technically accurate.
The Bureau closes that door. It specifies that if a price is unattainable because consumers must pay variable fees rather than a fixed price, the representation can still raise an issue under the law. The test is the general impression: if it is false or misleading on a material point, the problem stands.
And the notion of a material point is broad: a price representation is considered material if it leads a person to act in a specific way, such as buying a product or a service. A price that decides a purchase is by definition a material point.
What the booking-fee case established
The case that put the new provisions to the test is precisely about tickets: it touches your sector directly.
The Bureau brought proceedings against a cinema operator over mandatory online booking fees added to the initial ticket price. The price was displayed prominently at the top of the page, while the mention of the fees sat at the bottom, and a floating banner let the customer continue the purchase without ever reaching that mention.
Two details deserve a presenter's attention. The fees at issue were $1.50 per ticket, which shows that the size of the amount plays no part in the analysis. And the Bureau objected that the subtotal shown in the banner, although accurate, neither described nor broke out the fees, so that mental arithmetic was needed to realize an amount had been added.
The Tribunal imposed a substantial administrative monetary penalty and the appeal was dismissed. One scope clarification is required: the procedural details and the exact amount of the penalty are reported here from specialized legal commentary, not from a direct reading of the decision.
The Quebec layer
On top of the federal regime sits Quebec consumer law, and it is no more permissive.
The Consumer Protection Act governs the promotion of products and services in Quebec, and the principle that the advertised price must match the amount the consumer will pay is well established there. Class actions have been filed in Quebec on that basis, notably over tickets sold online.
Two practical consequences. A Quebec business faces two regimes at once, which eliminates the argument that a practice tolerated elsewhere in Canada would be defensible here. And the risk does not come only from the regulator: it also comes from private actions, which require no prior investigation to be filed.
Have your exact situation validated with the Office de la protection du consommateur, Quebec's consumer protection authority, or with legal counsel. This article establishes one thing only: neither layer lets you advertise an unattainable price.
What the rework costs
The expense is modest compared with the risk, and that is what makes inaction hard to defend in front of a board.
Reworking the price display on a ticketing site touches more places than you would think: the show grid, the event page, seat selection, the cart, payment, confirmation emails, ads and social posts. Count about 180 hours in total, or $14,400 at a rate of $80 an hour.
On top of that amount sits a commercial decision: displaying the all-in price raises the perceived price. On a $42 ticket with $6 in fees, you move from displaying $42 to displaying $48, without collecting one more dollar.
That is the real objection presenters raise, and it is legitimate. Rather than denying it, remember that all your competitors are subject to the same rule. A market where everyone displays the total price compares fairly, and that is the market where an honest price stops being a disadvantage.
Displaying the total price without losing conversions
The all-in price from the first mention. Grid, event page, advertising. It is the starting point, not an end-of-path step.
The breakdown beside it, not instead of it. Showing $48, then detailing $42 for the ticket and $6 in service fees, satisfies the rule and informs better than a single unexplained amount.
No mental arithmetic required. A subtotal that includes the fees without naming or breaking them out was explicitly criticized in the cinema case.
Consistency across every channel. The price in an ad, a newsletter and a page must be the same. It is the most frequent breaking point, because ads are produced separately.
A one-sentence justification of the fees. Nothing requires it, and it reduces friction. A buyer accepts an amount they understand more readily.
One commercial remark that matters. Displaying the total price earlier often lowers the click-through rate and raises the conversion rate of the visitors who continue, that is, the share of them who complete the purchase. The ones who drop off are the ones who would have abandoned at payment. Measure tickets sold, not click-through, or you will conclude you lost ground when you removed waste. The measurement logic is covered in our article on the seat-fill budget.
Five things to check on your own ticketing site
The responsibility belongs to the business that advertises the price, including when the ticketing platform is provided by a third party. These five checks take two hours.
- Walk through the full purchase path: on which screen does the total price appear for the first time?
- Do you have to scroll or read a fine-print mention to know that total?
- Are your fees named and broken out, or blended into a subtotal that requires mental arithmetic?
- Is the price advertised in your ads and newsletters the same as the one on the page?
- If your ticketing platform does not allow all-in display, who negotiates with the vendor, and by when?
The useful answer names a screen and a deadline. A vague answer says the fees are clearly indicated. A ticketing vendor that does not allow an all-in price puts you at risk, and you are the one advertising the price, not them.
Checking your path and costing the rework before a complaint does it for you is part of what we cover in a paid audit.
What stays with you: the decision to display the all-in price, the negotiation with the ticketing vendor and the legal validation. What can be delegated: the path audit, the template rework, aligning ads and newsletters, and measuring tickets sold before and after. A presenter that displays the total price from the show grid onward never runs into this problem and compares fairly with its competitors. A presenter that waits for a complaint reworks its templates in a rush, mid-season, when every day of work costs the most.
The same trade-off between platform and direct sales is covered in direct booking in hospitality.
Building the budget that carries these decisions is detailed in the marketing plan and its budget.
Turning a ticketing site into a path that sells without exposing the organization is at the heart of the Improve your site's conversion goal.
Worried about the effect of all-in display on your sales? See our work in conversion rate optimization.
Price display is only one of the decisions that carry a season: choosing the on-sale moment is covered in our article on ticket on-sale timing.
Frequently asked questions about service fees
Can we display the fees separately?
You can and should break them out, but beside the total price, not instead of it. The Bureau objected in particular that a subtotal including fees without describing or breaking them out forces the consumer into mental arithmetic. Showing $48, then detailing $42 for the ticket and $6 in fees, satisfies the rule and informs better than a single amount.
What if our fees are variable?
That does not settle the question. The Bureau specifies that a price unattainable because of variable fees can still raise an issue if the general impression is false or misleading on a material point. And a price representation that leads a person to buy is by definition material.
Do taxes have to be included?
Amounts imposed by government, such as sales tax, are the only exception to the rule and can be added to the advertised price. Every other mandatory fee, booking, processing, administration, must appear in it. That is the distinction to remember, and it is simple to apply.
Our ticketing platform does not allow it. What do we do?
You are the one advertising the price, not your vendor, and the responsibility follows you. Document the request in writing, set a deadline, and weigh the cost of changing platforms against the risk you are carrying. A platform that cannot display an all-in price in 2026 has a problem that goes beyond compliance.
Does displaying the total price hurt sales?
The click-through rate usually drops; the number of tickets sold drops much less, because those who leave are largely those who would have abandoned at payment. Measure tickets sold rather than clicks, or you will conclude you lost ground when you removed waste. And remember the rule applies to your competitors too.
Where do we start if everything needs reworking?
With the first mention of the price: show grid, event page and ads. That is where the gap is most visible and easiest for a complainant to record. The cart and payment come next, then the confirmation emails, which are almost always forgotten.
- Competition Bureau of Canada, Drip pricing, consulted in July 2026. Source for the general rule, the exception for amounts imposed by government, the express recognition of the practice since June 2022 and the treatment of variable fees.
- Competition Bureau of Canada, The ambush of hidden fees, news release of May 15, 2024. Source for the common forms of mandatory fees and for the test that the total price must require neither scrolling nor reading the fine print.
- Competition Bureau proceedings over a cinema operator's online booking fees. The procedural details and the amount of the penalty are reported from specialized legal commentary, not from a direct reading of the decision.
- Falia working framework, arithmetic for the cost of the display rework. The amounts are explicit working examples, to be redone with your number of paths and your rate.
Gabriel almost always takes your first call and carries out your audit. He builds the strategy starting from your growth goal: where to put your budget, which market to test and how to connect each lead to a real sale in your CRM. He mainly leads engagements for three goals: Optimize the profitability of your digital campaigns, Develop a new market, and Generate demand and growth. With Geneviève, he also works on organic search (SEO), AI visibility (GEO) and conversion rate optimization (CRO). The sales a Google Ads or Meta Ads campaign brings in depend on the page that receives the click. He writes mainly about marketing strategy, paid advertising and measurement.
About Falia →
SEO
Paid advertising
Conversion
AI visibility
Web design